Red Bull RB20

[FW17]

There is often a delay between FIA discovering a grey area on a team's car and putting in legislation / an official TD. But in the meantime they can tell the team to stop using this device. There's precedent for them doing this.

Like Ferrari asked to stop using the fuel flowmeter over ride partway through the 2019 season.

[AR3-GP]

While it's certainly possible, I think you have to be very careful taking RacingNews365 seriously after Dieter Rencken left 2-3 years ago. It became more of a tabloid style website ever since then (like Planetf1). The type of content being posted there became clickbait almost overnight when Rencken left. Paolo Fisetti, the technical analyst credited with this analysis has a history of using technical jargon sprinkled into an article to make stuff up.

When TD018 was introduced at Singapore last year, Paolo Fisetti was adamant that it was the reason that Red Bull lost their pace. From last year:
https://racingnews365.com/has-td018-had ... bulls-rb19

The impact of TD018?
Refuting the statements of team management, nothing else but the introduction of TD018 could have upset the delicate balance of the car.

Having tried various configurations and settings with different ride heights and without arriving at as satisfactory solution to induce sufficient energy on the tyres to grip and stability that the drivers needed, unequivocally indicates the effects linked to the impossibility of managing load generated by the wings in a straight line and through the controlled deformation of the flaps has had a devastating effect on the balance of the car.

He sprinkled in some plausible sounding technical jargon and made up the "smoking gun" story. Then Red Bull won every single race after Singapore...


Fisetti also authored a piece on Red Bull's "magic" DRS last year which I thought was poor and built upon too much "supernatural" arguments. It was just a bunch of wordy and technical sounding fluff. He suggested that Red Bull's car lowers when the DRS opens. The article was so ridiculous that it was taken down from the website:
https://racingnews365.nl/analyse-de-wer ... -uitgelegd


As an aside, you have speculation like this from earlier in the season that was just the latest theory at the time because a "hidden source" said it was:

Anyone saw the article on GP confidential regarding RB suspension
Seems that they had a complex system with up to 3 reservoirs and with latency on charge and discharge cycles, with goal to keep ride height constant
FIA disassembled it circa Miami GP and ordered the latency system to be removed
It was the moment Domenicalli mentioned that RB dominance was not to last

Until someone actually reliable reports it (AMUS), it remains an open question. A car with such a system would have been dominant at Red Bull's worst tracks. Coulthard explained earlier that the system implementation in the '97 Mclaren (which was even more advanced than a simple inertial valve) required the driver to touch the throttle to prevent the inside wheel from locking up on entry because the rear inside wheel is the most unloaded wheel. There's no evidence of this in the telemetry.

You could piece together circumstantial evidence from this season to lay the blame on any of Mclaren, Ferrari, Mercedes, or Red Bull. Asymmetric braking was a loophole, and loopholes are allowed to be exploited, but it's not clear yet which team if any has done it.

[rijtuig]

Do you expect communique that clarifies the situation, which in turn can damage the F1?

I don't expect anything to be made public.

[AR3-GP]

Do you expect communique that clarifies the situation, which in turn can damage the F1?

I don't expect anything to be made public.

F1 doesn't have a problem making things public.

In 2021, there were public discussions (and credible media) about the wing flexibility of the Red Bull and they had to change it.
In 2022, it was speculated openly amongst credible media and teams that Ferrari and Red Bull were using flexible planks.
In 2023, it was openly speculated by credible media and teams that TD018 was the cause of Red Bull's loss of performance in Singapore.

FIA introduced technical directives in all 3 seasons that specifically addressed this topic.

Why would they not introduce a technical directive now? It's possible that the rules have been clarified but no team was using the system.

The more credible outlets like formula.uno (they would never miss an opportunity to shame Red Bull), AMUS, and others have not reported any of these brake steering stories in connection with Red Bull and they would be the first ones to do so if it was real.

[PlatinumZealot]

The device is not real.

RedBull mechanic confirmed it.

Breaking such a rule is also a slam dunk penalty and even a docking of WCc points because the wording is extremely clear. It's not even loop-hole territory in any shape or form.

You are better off having extra brake pad cylidners that open up under g-forces to stay withing the rules.

Keep in mind this sort of effect can be achieved with the differential.

[Zynerji]

The device is not real.

RedBull mechanic confirmed it.

Breaking such a rule is also a slam dunk penalty and even a docking of WCc points because the wording is extremely clear. It's not even loop-hole territory in any shape or form.

You are better off having extra brake pad cylidners that open up under g-forces to stay withing the rules.

Keep in mind this sort of effect can be achieved with the differential.

I asked the question about differential control schemes here a long time ago, and literally got zero information from the users.

Diffs = black box F1 technology, apparently.

[rijtuig]

Do you expect communique that clarifies the situation, which in turn can damage the F1?

I don't expect anything to be made public.

F1 doesn't have a problem making things public.

In 2021, there were public discussions (and credible media) about the wing flexibility of the Red Bull and they had to change it.
In 2022, it was speculated openly amongst credible media and teams that Ferrari and Red Bull were using flexible planks.
In 2023, it was openly speculated by credible media and teams that TD018 was the cause of Red Bull's loss of performance in Singapore.

FIA introduced technical directives in all 3 seasons that specifically addressed this topic.

Why would they not introduce a technical directive now? It's possible that the rules have been clarified but no team was using the system.

The more credible outlets like formula.uno (they would never miss an opportunity to shame Red Bull), AMUS, and others have not reported any of these brake steering stories in connection with Red Bull and they would be the first ones to do so if it was real.

Agreed, however, IF RB has won WDC's due to this, it might impact the business and frankly speaking - I don't think Liberty is in favor of discussing this publicly. We've seen how this has impacted the sport in the past.

[ing.]

If this is meant to help turn-in on entry, driver is coming off full brake pedal pressure, so fluid flow, however minor, would be outflowing. An ‘inertia’ valve could work, MAYBE, by restricting outflow of inside brake, so dragging inside wheel for turning assist.

[FW17]

The device is not real.

RedBull mechanic confirmed it.

Breaking such a rule is also a slam dunk penalty and even a docking of WCc points because the wording is extremely clear. It's not even loop-hole territory in any shape or form.

You are better off having extra brake pad cylidners that open up under g-forces to stay withing the rules.

Keep in mind this sort of effect can be achieved with the differential.

If there was a rule for it to be slam dunk penalty why rewrite the rules midseason?

[AR3-GP]

If this is meant to help turn-in on entry, driver is coming off full brake pedal pressure, so fluid flow, however minor, would be outflowing. An ‘inertia’ valve could work, MAYBE, by restricting outflow of inside brake, so dragging inside wheel for turning assist.

This is a good theory. Even in a system with a very small mass flow, you can generate an asymmetric hysteresis by simply reducing the size of the opening on one side.

[ing.]

If this is meant to help turn-in on entry, driver is coming off full brake pedal pressure, so fluid flow, however minor, would be outflowing. An ‘inertia’ valve could work, MAYBE, by restricting outflow of inside brake, so dragging inside wheel for turning assist.

This is a good theory. Even in a system with a very small mass flow, you can generate an asymmetric hysteresis by simply reducing the size of the opening on one side.

Right, and maybe this caused Max’s brake issue in AUS—valve stuck so brake pressure on one rear wheel didn’t come off, so brake stayed on.

[Paa]

If this is meant to help turn-in on entry, driver is coming off full brake pedal pressure, so fluid flow, however minor, would be outflowing. An ‘inertia’ valve could work, MAYBE, by restricting outflow of inside brake, so dragging inside wheel for turning assist.

This is a good theory. Even in a system with a very small mass flow, you can generate an asymmetric hysteresis by simply reducing the size of the opening on one side.

Right, and maybe this caused Max’s brake issue in AUS—valve stuck so brake pressure on one rear wheel didn’t come off, so brake stayed on.

Also that could have been the clue to FIA. Maybe accidents like that are investigated, teams needing to explain what happened for safety reasons.

[PlatinumZealot]

The device is not real.

RedBull mechanic confirmed it.

Breaking such a rule is also a slam dunk penalty and even a docking of WCc points because the wording is extremely clear. It's not even loop-hole territory in any shape or form.

You are better off having extra brake pad cylidners that open up under g-forces to stay withing the rules.

Keep in mind this sort of effect can be achieved with the differential.

If there was a rule for it to be slam dunk penalty why rewrite the rules midseason?

FIA rewrite rules all the time, doesn't mean someone was caught or that there is a loop-hole.

Someone can interpret the rule incorrectly.

In the rules it clearly states the system must be designed to apply equal forces to the pads.

Then the changes to the rules speaks of a system intentionally producing assymetric braking torques.


The inertial valve loophole is already covered by the orginal rules that speaks to equal forces. (it says nothing of pressures!) Easy peasy slam dunk black and white.

The clarification now is on braking torques.. Note that you can apply braking torques through the KERS system and differential.

https://x.com/ScarbsTech/status/1824228759567814841

[Henk_v]

Then even, we are talking about clever interpretations. Not anything illegal or unfair.

It baffles me sometimes that everytime an exciting interpretation is referred to as unfair advantage or cheating.

What do poeple think these 100's of engineers do? They are bending the rules to their absolute maximum. It's what they get paid for, and for most the reason why they wake up in the morning. They are playing games just as much as the drivers do. Don't start crying if somebody has been clever.

Admire it as part of the sport and acknowledge the achievement.

If the rulemaker thinks it is not favouring their objectives, they can thank them for their creativity, apologise, and write a TD.

[hollus]

Hi guys, after 1.5 pages of speculation... the device remains speculation.
So please, unless it is confirmed or concrete information appears, keep it out of the car thread. Same as the flux capacitor, really.
Journo reports, Scarb's drawings... all very nice, but this is already being discussed in the RB team thread and even in a dedicated thread:
viewtopic.php?t=31850&start=45

Please, keep it to those places unless anything potentially to be used as evidence appears.
Let's keep the car threads to things known to be in the cars.